Israel’s elections next week may produce a new leader, but they are unlikely to shift the country’s strategic fundamentals. Policymakers and regional analysts say Iran will remain Israel’s main adversary, military power will continue to be the preferred tool, and the establishment of a Palestinian state will remain a distant prospect, according to a Reuters report.
اضافة اعلان
This is because the strategic assumptions underpinning Israeli policy have been reinforced by the Hamas-led attacks on southern Israeli communities on October 7, 2023, as well as by the wars in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran.
If there is no major change, analysts say Israel’s security policy could become even more hardline. A victory by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, backed by his far-right coalition allies, could give him greater latitude to escalate the conflict with Iran, tighten Israel’s grip on the occupied West Bank and marginalize diplomacy.
Israel’s current security doctrine rests on three main pillars: weakening Iran, controlling buffer zones beyond its borders, and using military force to deter its enemies.
Analysts say the real dispute is over degree rather than direction—how aggressively Israel wages its wars, how far it expands settlements in the West Bank, and whether any leader will choose diplomacy.
The election scheduled for next Tuesday is not widely viewed as a potential turning point, but rather as a test of whether the Middle East is heading toward a prolonged confrontation in which war intensifies and subsides while underlying conflicts remain unresolved.
Aviv Bushinsky, a former adviser to Netanyahu, said: “If Netanyahu is elected, he will do everything he believes he wants to do. He will continue expanding settlements. The wars against Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah will continue.”
“What you see now is what you will see after the election, perhaps in a more aggressive form,” he added.
As long as Iran remains in its current position, he said, “talking about Palestine is a waste of time.”
On Sunday, Netanyahu said Israel should prioritize “prevention and attack over containment and defense,” including launching preemptive strikes to prevent emerging threats, while strengthening Israel’s position as a regional power and maximizing its independence in arms production.
Why Is a Change in Direction Unlikely?
The election pits Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud party and its far-right nationalist allies against an opposition led by Yash, headed by former military commander Gadi Eisenkot.
Palestinian analyst Ghassan Khatib sees little prospect of a fundamental shift in Israeli policy toward the Palestinians, as Israeli political parties compete to demonstrate tougher positions while public opinion continues moving further to the right.
“There may be changes in style, form or appearance, but in my view there will be no change in the substance of policy,” he said. “The essence of the policy is no to a Palestinian state and yes to more settlements. This is something we all agree on.”
A government led by Netanyahu’s opponents could seek to improve Israel’s international standing by curbing some settler violence or continuing settlement expansion in a less conspicuous manner. Khatib said, however, that such changes would represent a shift in style rather than substance.
In response to Reuters questions about Iran and the West Bank, a U.S. State Department spokesperson said Washington would continue to pressure Tehran.
“As long as Iran devotes its energy revenues to funding attacks against our allies, supports terrorism around the world and engages in other destabilizing activities, we will use every tool available to hold this regime accountable,” the spokesperson said.
The spokesperson added that the United States does not support Israel annexing the West Bank.
“Stability in the West Bank strengthens Israel’s security and is consistent with this administration’s goal of achieving peace in the region,” the spokesperson said.
Michael Young of the Carnegie Middle East Center said Israel’s security establishment and much of its political class share a common strategic vision centered on confronting Iran and maintaining a strategy of “forward defense” and military deterrence, reducing the likelihood of major political shifts.
The “Poisonous Octopus”
Some regional policymakers are questioning whether the confrontation between Israel and Iran has become the foundation and cornerstone of the Middle East’s security structure, regardless of who wins the election.
U.S. President Donald Trump’s praise of Netanyahu, whom he described as a “great warrior prime minister,” has strengthened expectations that the Israeli leader would seek to bring the campaign against Tehran to a decisive conclusion if he remains in power.
Netanyahu has made clear that his ambitions go beyond containing Iran and extend to removing its clerical rulers from power.
Speaking at an army officers’ graduation ceremony on Wednesday, he said there was “only one way to permanently remove this threat, and that is to overthrow the regime in Iran.” He added that this was the directive he was giving to the military, the Mossad and other security agencies.
In another speech this week, he said: “Completing the mission means overthrowing the terrorist regime in Iran, the head of the poisonous octopus.”
However, military and political analysts question whether anything short of a U.S.-Israeli ground invasion could force Tehran to abandon what it considers its core security interests in what it sees as an existential struggle.
After holding out through months of war, Iran may be betting that it can outlast its opponents while continuing to exert pressure through its regional allies.
“This is a quagmire,” Young said. “The Iranians can outlast Trump.”
Analysts said Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza have been weakened, but the broader network of Iran-aligned groups remains resilient. The conflict could also strengthen Tehran’s determination to pursue a nuclear deterrent.
Source: Al-Ghad / Reuters
